Englebert

I'm curious, are you implying that somehow we ran people off? If that assumption is true, how do you think that feat was accomplished? I really hope you are not trying to throw out the victimhood card for those that decided to quit participating in this forum.

Why do you feel you are qualified to make that assessment?

So what you are saying is that the New York Times blatantly lied, then when caught said "oops, my bad...we will retract our lie". They "clarified" nothing.

I'm thinking that even the Liberals have now come to the conclusion that Obama was the worst President in U.S. history...well, most of them are at least admitting he was terrible.

Why? Please explain the policy differences between the two that leads you to this proclamation. I would love to hear your rationale for longing for a (barely) Conservative over someone more on the Liberal side. I anxiously await your thoughtful insight. (Call the Guiness Book Of World Records, I just set a record for the most sarcastic post of all time.)

If 9 out of 10 posters on this site are so biased and racists, why don't you call us/them out when you witness these transgressions? I have never seen you offer a legitimate counterpoint to anything posted in this forum. All you deliver is attempts to obfuscate and off-topic subject changes. Considering you won't debate but complain profusely, does this mean you are incapable of debate, or just the spitting image of the person you described in stevenash's post?

Yes, he will think of something corresponding with the time his Liberal leaders unleash the next set of talking points.

What makes you feel capable of determining my qualifications? What are your qualifications that give you this uncanny ability? And I would love to hear your rationale as to why you feel I couldn't be honest enough to be included in this list. Please, explain what leads you to believe this, and why. I'm particularly interested to hear your rationale for not including yourself. Are you readily admitting that you cannot be honest with yourself enough to be trusted to be honest with the rest of us?

There are many terms or sayings for this phenomenon. On of my favorites is "rose colored glasses".

What is the impetus of this topic? Do you have a point of discussion? I'll start. Do you think that a bunch of people disseminating false, fake, and biased information should achieve the moniker of a news organization, afforded all of the protections of a free press?

But the "good reason" happened before he got fired.

And what is that "good reason"? Please explain.

Did you also read about the stunning revelation that the Clintons have Russians connections? And is it possible that the Clinton connections were innocent solicitations for donations to the Clinton Foundation, and of course with no strings attached. But uh oh, if anyone not supporting the Liberal agenda can point to Russia on a map, this is proof of connections and nefarious dealings.

Who gets to decide what is fake? new tobie posted a link from Politifact that rated various statements as lies, and it was easy to see their biased hate clouded their judgment enough that even 3rd graders could see the outrageous propaganda they are trying to peddle. So should Politifact be a judge as to what is fact? How about members of this board, are we good enough stewards to decide what is fake? Do you think you could perform this task?

This topic is not about who started Fast and Furious, or whether or not it was a good idea. The topic is about how Holder lied and deceived Congress and the American people. Obama is complicit in this disgusting act by exerting executive privilege over the documents, thus grinding any investigation to a halt. But yeah, let's bring Bush into the discussion.

Wow, I hope I'm never a defendant with you on the jury. Please explain what information about the whole subject that you gleaned from this revelation. Do you believe that every time a person wants to talk in private signifies something sinister is going on? And how do you come to the conclusion that Trump's "suggestions" are illegal? And why do you feel Comey is honest and truthful when he admitted to leaking information? Does leaking information exemplify someone that's honest and truthful? And why didn't Comey leak or even come forward about the political pressure Loretta Lynch put on him? And why didn't Comey leak the fact that Trump is not under FBI investigation? I have a strong feeling you think Comey is all-of-a-sudden truthful and honest because he is now challenging Trump.

I agree with that's the way it should be. But in today's world, if you give one person an exception, the one you deny will file a lawsuit.

So what happens when the next exception request is to wear a T-Shirt of the enrolled college colors? How do you defend your stance of no when you've already made exceptions? I will agree with y'all if I can get an acceptable answer to that question. And I like the idea of a military requirement after graduation or of a certain age. For the longest I was against the idea, but I've changed my stance over the last ten years or so.

I read some of the statements that Punditfact is considering as false, and it is crystal clear that Punditfact is the one that needs to be fact-checked. That was pathetic. Would you like to discuss some of these new tobie? I'm sure you are anxious to defend the integrity of your post.

I wouldn't necessarily have too much of a problem making an exception in this case, except I think it could possibly lead to trouble later on. Someone might want to wear the College T-Shirt of the college they will be attending after graduation. It would be hard to say no when that person can use the "Well you made an exception for so and so" argument. Then you would possibly get all kinds of exception requests, which again will be hard to defend once you've already made previous exception(s). If the decision was made because of upholding traditional values of uniformity in dress, then I agree with the decision. If the decision was made because the decision makers don't want or like the military presence being displayed at the graduation ceremony, then I would have a real problem with that.

I don't have a problem with this decision, considering I don't know the motivation behind not letting the graduate don his uniform. If others are allowed to wear garments other than the graduation robes, then he should be allowed to wear his military uniform. But if all are required to wear the robes and only the robes, so should he. He is not representing the military when accepting his diploma. I look at it akin to other functions. If he was playing a high school baseball game, he would be required to wear his baseball uniform. If he was performing in the band, he should wear the band uniform. If he was a cheerleader, he should wear his cheerleading outfit. (Have to walk on egg shells and show I'm tolerant and inclusive.) When traditional rules call for the robes to be worn on graduation, he should wear the robes.

The intolerance from the group that preaches tolerance is on full display. The Liberals demand, many times through force and/or intimidation, that everyone be tolerant and inclusive, and yet openly practice intolerance and exclusivity on a regular basis. The irony is that I don't think they are cognizant of their hypocrisy and double-standards. They deem their excuses for excluding one or a group as valid, while every other reason for exclusion is based on hate and intolerance, all the while bolstering a holier-than-thou superiority attitude.

What does Obama have to do with this?

After being lied to for eight years without a peep from you, we all understand perfectly that you either have no clue as to what a lie is, or you just selectively throw that label around based on party affiliation. That hashtag reached it's prime during the last administration, so why are you just using it now?

So you want to go after the imaginary terrorists, but have no comment on the real ones (by your definition). If I went to the police station and requested the cops come arrest you for terroristic threats, what do you supposed would be their first question? I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "do you have any proof?" And if I responded with "Yes, he threatened me." The next question would be "When?" And if I responded "50 years ago", I would be shown the door in an abrupt fashion. By that same token, I will ask the obvious question that any normal person would ask. Do you have any proof of terrorists in Alabama, Kentucky, or Mississippi?